Tag Archives: F-35

Speak Out Against Nuclear Weapons in Vermont

Uncategorized, , ,

It’s time to go there again:  the F-35 fighter jet should not be based at Burlington airport.

There are so many reasons why not:  

.There is a statistically high crash potential for new aircraft, like the F-35, that have minimal flight hours logged…anywhere.  Crashes are more likely to occur right after takeoff than at any other point in a flight.  That would make the immediate Burlington area the most likely  location for a crash.

.Burlington’s urban population lives in close proximity to the airport.  All of the other locations considered for this siting were appropriately situated away from civilian populations.  Burlington should never even have been in the running.

.Lake Champlain has a sensitive ecosystem which may be negatively impacted by the daily activity of F-35’s departing and returning to Burlington Airport.  Sophisticated new radar systems may represent additional disruptions for wildlife.

.Despite promises to the contrary, there is every reason to expect that the sound of the F-35’s will be significantly more disturbing than that of F-16’s currently in use.

.Any advanced weapons system represents a potential target to enemies of the U.S.  Burlington will be at the center of that target once the F-35 is located there.

.As was long suspected, we are learning that the F-35 will be nuclear capable.  Despite assurances to the contrary,  if the F-35 is deployed to Burlington airport, sooner or later, nuclear weapons will be onboard.  Nevermind the moral implications of a nuclear Burlington; it’s not difficult to imagine the risk involved for all of Vermont.

We can no longer trust cooler heads to prevail.

HR 7 is a House Resolution to preemptively ban nuclear weapons in Vermont.  So far, the Resolution has not been voted out of the General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee.

It’s time for every concerned Vermonter to call the Sergeant at Arms at (802) 828-2228 and tell him to pass a message on your behalf to Rep. Tom Stevens, the Committee Chair, that you want him to bring HR 7 up for discussion, and to please vote for it.

If you’ve been feeling a little powerless lately, this is your chance to make a difference.  Your voice can still be heard in Montpelier; so sing out loud, before it’s too late.

The F-35 has friends in high places.

local/regional, National, , , , ,

Jasper Craven  deserves kudos for his well-researched and insightful look  (Vermont Digger, April 13) into political forces driving the rather incongruous choice of Burlington Airport for the Air National Guard’s F-35 program..

With three surrounding cities opposing the F-35 plan,  a considerable grassroots opposition force, and all the issues of locating in the midst of a bustling city, one must really ask…why?

Mr. Craven’s article synthesizes the interest factors into a landscape of political blackmail, over which Governor Phil Scott bashfully presides.

Like so much that unseats environmental and ethical concerns these days, jobs are at the heart of the matter.  More precisely, it is the threat of jobs disappearing.

It’s the kind of political blackmail we’re regrettably used to from DC, but it’s pretty disheartening to the good people of Chittenden County, Vermont.  

We have only the word of interested (and therefore conflicted) parties to the siting, that failure to locate the F-35 at Burlington airport would mean an end to the Air National Guard’s Vermont mission.  If we are to believe, as we are told, that the Vermont Air National Guard is considered to be an elite within the force, this claim seems rather counter-intuitive.

To politicians who have grown accustomed to short interest cycles driven by frequent elections, it’s sufficient just to dangle the possibility of job departures in order to recruit their support for the most dubious of enterprises.   This, in a year when Vermont unemployment  stands at the remarkably low figure of 2.8%.

One has to ask whether we can ever shake this bugaboo in order to do the right thing, if we can’t do it when unemployment is so low.

Despite the fact that joblessness is the Republican cudgel, in Vermont, it holds sway over our Democratic DC delegation as surely as it does our Republican Governor.  This means that business interests, represented in this case by Ernie Pomerleau of Pomerleau Real Estate and Frank Cioffi of the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation, hold greater sway over politicos than do their constituents who must actually live with the product of their ambitions.  

Business interests are putting their money where their (collective) mouth is:

In recent weeks, Pomerleau has purchased, through his company, Pomerleau Real Estate, seven paid stories in the Burlington Free Press that highlight the stories of Air Guard members. An eighth so-called advertorial will be released in the near future.

Cioffi’s GBIC is also doing its part to pitch the project and dismiss  voices of opposition as little more than cranks:

GBIC has produced numerous reports promoting the F-35 in recent years. In 2012, it commissioned a study that projected no decline in home values from the F-35 basing, a claim that was challenged by real estate appraiser Steve Allen. He said the data set used was “extremely small” and therefore “statistically unreliable.” In addition, the study included home purchase data by the Federal Aviation Administration, which offered top dollar to residents.

A week before Scott’s Pentagon meeting, GBIC sent a detailed memo to Air Force Secretary Wilson providing background on the F-35 basing in Vermont. The GBIC memo appeared to downplay the state’s opposition to the planes, characterizing F-35 opponents as “a core group of perennial protesters, many of whom are longtime anti-military political activists.

“Vermonters overwhelmingly support the Air National Guard,” the report reads. 

“We are proud to have been selected for the basing of the F-35A.”

Say what?

Beyond all the legitimate issues about process and quality of life, which continue to roil  the community at large, there remains an overarching question  that has yet to be answered.  It is likely to remain unanswered for strategic reasons, but the people of Chittenden County, and indeed all of Vermont, should not be expected to accept the siting without an answer. 

That question has many parts: ie. what role will nuclear weapons play in the Vermont deployment of F-35, should it ultimately come to pass; will nuclear weapons be stored at or near Burlington airport; if so, how many and in what state of readiness; how will they be transported to and from the base;  what is the likelihood that armed nuclear weapons will fly through Vermont’s airspace on a non-emergency basis; and what provisions will be in place for dealing with an F-35 crash in Vermont, even, heaven forbid, a “dirty” accident (nuclear radiation release) in the beating heart of Chittenden County?

I would say that there is a 100% chance that we will never have answers to these questions, but will be expected to simply accept the Air National Guard’s greater wisdom on the nuclear issue.

Well, I for one, do not.

Burlington’s Open Meeting Problem

local/regional, , , , , ,

‘Sounds like it’s time for Sec. of State Jim Condos to bring his celebrated
Transparency Tour to the big city of Burlington.

I used to think Franklin County was the poster child for dodgy open-meeting practices, but this week, Miro Weinberger and company seem to be giving FC a run for its money.

On GMD, we’ve long questioned the wisdom of locating F-35 fighter planes in the densely populated area that is Burlington Airport. We’ve read the well-articulated concerns of neighbors and the glaringly deficient conclusions of officialdom.

We know that Burlington probably wouldn’t even have been considered for the siting if it were not for the concentrated efforts of Senator Leahy, the Chittenden County political elite and the development community, which seems to play a central role in local decision making.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of all of these interested parties, legitimate public concerns always seem to get short-shrift.

When such a controversial topic is discussed before City Councilors, one would think there would be special care taken to ensure that the rules governing open meetings are scrupulously observed, even to the point of over-compensation.

Even though the notice posted announcing the meeting stated that “no Council business will be discussed,” a quorum of Councilors was present (the minimum number of Councilors necessary to conduct Council business), and that of and by itself triggers the ‘open meeting’ requirement and all the rules associated with an open meeting.

To say that no Council business would be discussed is a bit disingenuous in any case, as a presentation by the Guard would undoubtedly involve some mention of the F-35 siting and questions and answers of interest to the public who are engaged on either side of the issue.

It is my understanding that, to remain within the confines of Open Meeting Law, either the public must be free to attend, or the number of Councilors in attendance must be below the number required to conduct a legal vote. If a quorum must be in attendance, the Council has no choice but to gavel a meeting before the public.

After that, if it can be justified under the limitations governing open meetings, the Council may go into Executive Session, excluding the public from the conversation. But there are strict rules governing the circumstances under which Executive Session may be convened. I believe the only allowable reasons are to discuss a city employee or legal matters which my be adversely affected by premature disclosure. They should be prepared to summarily explain why Executive Session is justified, and they must come out of Executive Session if a vote is to be taken.

In any case, maintaining public trust should be paramount in any question of excluding citizens from a Council gathering.

While the Secretary of States office is relatively powerless in enforcing open meeting rules, Jim Condos has recognized that Vermont has a problem in that area, and initiated his annual “Transparency Tour” not long after he took office.

Since receiving a polite reminder of the obligation to follow the open meeting rules a couple of years ago, I am happy to say that the City of St. Albans appears to have become much more conscientious. Apparently, the same cannot necessarily be said of Burlington.

As I have discovered, there is little legal recourse for the aggrieved in the event of an open meeting violation, so it is not surprising to learn that

“None of the community members…are currently pursuing any action.”

Thursday insta-diary

Business, local/regional, ,

Here’s something quick with a chart and a Vermont connection.wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large

In an editorial Monday titled: A Better not Fatter Defense Budget the NYTimes.com suggested the time has come to take a look at throttling back US military spending. And one of the most expensive aircraft ever, the F-35 (scheduled to be based in Burlington VT 2019)caught their eye.

The Pentagon can do with far fewer than the 1,700 F-35s it plans on buying.

[…]For nearly a decade after 9/11, the Pentagon had a virtual blank check; the base defense budget rose, in adjusted dollars, from $378 billion in 1998 to $600 billion in 2010. As the military fought Al Qaeda and the Taliban, billions of dollars were squandered on unnecessary items, including new weapons that ran late and over budget like the troubled F-35 jet fighter.

F-35 engine burns and the economy of scale

Business, National,

Keep an eye out for progress, or lack of it on the new F-35 jet fighter. The world’s most costly jet, which someday may be seen and definitely heard in the skies over Burlington, ran into more trouble recently, an engine fire and continued cost problems, to be specific. Preliminary results into what caused an F-35’s engine to rip apart and burn on take-off report:

…excessive rubbing of fan blades in a certain section of the Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, […] rubbing was far more severe than normal and led to higher temperatures, cracking and fatigue, “That’s what caused that engine to come apart,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who manages Joint Strike Fighter program. [added emphasis]

Last month’s malfunction and fire resulted in orders to temporarily ground all F-35 jets. This will prohibit any from showing themselves off at the prestigious Farnborough Air Show. A much hyped appearance at the industry sponsored exhibition in Britain was hoped to impress potential buyers of the plane. Maybe a video of the runway engine fire and fleet-wide grounding demonstration could suffice.

Late Tuesday the F-35 was cleared to fly.But the BBC is reporting that only a life-sized model will make it to the Farnborough Air Show. Maybe the world’s most expensive sales display. Well plywood or inflatable I bet it very quiet.

The world’s most expensive real fighter jet and sweetheart of the Vermont’s GBIC may be caught in a budget vise. Eventually bulk purchases of the F-35 are the goal set forth to drive down the cost of the world’s most expensive fighter jet. However everyone isn’t on board.

The cost of the F-35 itself increased $3.1 billion, according to the report — a number Bogdan said is primarily attributed to DoD jets from its budget plans between 2015 and 2018, when the purchase of 33 aircraft, mostly Navy, were delayed. As of April 2014 the total cost to procure and develop the F-35 is pegged at $398.6 billion. [added emphasis]

The economies of scale don’t work when Congress (as they did recently) cuts or delays the number of jets to be purchased. And I imagine the major contractors will hold out for long-term ironclad purchase guarantees to someday make back the development dollars they are investing now to produce cheaper parts.

It looks, from a glance at the sleek F-35 webpage, as if they sliced the development pie dollars up between more than a few aerospace/defense contractors and congressional districts – Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Pratt and Whitney. Smaller slices of the massive dollar pie are being served to more than 1,400 suppliers from 46 U.S. states and companies from 10 other countries around the world. It’s an ongoing boondoggle Vermonters will hear plenty more from later.